RHRealityCheck.org Reproductive Health Information, News, Commentary and Community http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/atom/feed 2009-11-04T21:56:49-05:00 Whose Leaning on Stupak? Is it Your Rep? http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/07/whose-leaning-stupak-is-it-your-rep 2009-11-07T09:34:52-05:00 2009-11-07T09:42:40-05:00 Jodi Jacobson The House will vote this morning on an amendment to the health reform bill that if passed will effectively ban private insurance plans from providing coverage for abortion care.

Where does your rep stand?  

These Dems lean pro-choice but need shoring up.  Click here to find your representative and tell them to vote no on Stupak.


Arcuri (D, NY-24)      
 Bean (D, IL-08)
 Bishop, S. (D, GA-02)  
 Boswell (D, IA-03)     
 Butterfield (D, NC-01)
Cardoza (D, CA-18)     
 Chandler (D, KY-06)    
 Cooper (D, TN-05)      
 Costa (D, CA-20)       
 Doyle (D, PA-14)       
 Edwards, C. (D, TX-17)
Etheridge (D, NC-02)   
 Gordon (D, TN-06)      
 Kratovil (D, MD-01)    
 Langevin (D, RI-02)    
 McMahon (D, NY-13)     
 Michaud (D, ME-02)     
 Minnick (D, ID-01)     
 Neal (D, MA-02)
 Nye (D, VA-02)
Obey (D, WI-07)        
 Owens (D, NY-23)       
 Ruppersberger (D, MD-02)       
 Ryan, T. (D, OH-17)    
 Salazar (D, CO-03)     
 Space (D, OH-18)       
]]> House Will Take "Up or Down" Vote on Stupak Amendment, Threatening Women's Rights http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/07/house-will-take-up-or-down-vote-stupak-amendment-threatening-womens-rights 2009-11-07T08:45:10-05:00 2009-11-07T09:32:14-05:00 Jodi Jacobson ]]> House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which seeks to block even private insurance plans from funding abortion care.

In other words, this amendment, if passed and included in a final health reform bill, would block you from getting insurance to cover legal procedures in the United States of America, with premiums paid with your personal funds. Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Women's Law Center and other groups are calling for immediate action against the amendment, and you can click here to find your representative and tell them to vote no on Stupak.

The amendment, named for Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) and Conressman Joe Pitts (R-PA).  Stupak is a so-called "Democrat for Life;" Pitts has been a dogged supporter of failed abstinence-only policies, domestically and internationally and was among those who succeeded in language forbidding provision of contraceptive supplies for HIV-positive women in US global AIDS funding.

The agreement to vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment came after 1:00 am this morning when an effort to adopt compromise language crafted by Congressman Brad Ellsworth apparently was rejected by Stupak and his supporters.  We reported on the Ellsworth Amendment here.  Rejection of the Ellsworth Amendment makes clear the agenda of Stupak's amendment is to ban abortion care in private insurance plans, because Ellsworth provided numerous protections against the use of federal funds for abortions other than those for rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother, for all of which the law now allows federal funding.

The Hill reports that:

Liberals on the committee threatened to vote against the final healthcare bill if it included Stupak’s language, warning that it would be a return to the days of back-alley abortions. 

 

“I forsee a return to the dark ages,” Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), told the Hill. “I’m 73, I’ve seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die.”

“I used to think that life was black or white, but the older I get the most gray it becomes,” liberal Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) told the panelists of the House Rules committee as they debated whether to allow the amendment.

“I find this amendment very, very uncomfortable.”

Having successfully made birth control "too controversial for health reform," Stupak, working with other "Dems for Life," the now unabashedly ultra-right Republican party and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened to block passage of the health reform bill unless he got his way on the vote.  His efforts are backed up by a massive organizing effort undertaken by the Catholic Bishops to mobilize ultra conservative Catholics throughout the country.  More than 85 percent of Catholics in the United States use birth control, and Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as women in the general population.

Women's rights advocates, including the Speaker and a majority of the Democratic caucus, support a provision in the healthcare bill that would subsidize abortions for poor women who can’t afford them, in keeping with current law.

“Rep. Stupak’s proposal to codify the Hyde amendment in health care reform would force women who want comprehensive reproductive health care coverage to purchase a separate, single-service rider," said Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Such an ‘abortion rider,’ whereby abortion care could only be covered by a single-service plan in the exchange, is discriminatory and illogical. Women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies or medically complicated pregnancies that require ending the pregnancy. In fact, about half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and abortion is not something that women plan to insure against.  As a result, an ‘abortion rider’ policy is unworkable.  Women would not choose to purchase it, and would subsequently be unable to obtain the care they need.  Proposing a separate ‘abortion rider’ represents exactly the type of government interference in the health care marketplace that conservatives purport to vehemently oppose.  

For these and other reasons, “Planned Parenthood strongly opposes the Stupak/Pitts amendment which would result in women losing health benefits they have today," said Richards in a statement released early this morning.

This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all, by [instead] creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes. Women won’t stand for legislation that takes away their current benefits and leaves them worse off after health care reform than they are today.

While Rep. Stupak claims that his amendment simply applies the Hyde amendment to health reform, nothing could be farther from the truth. 

In fact, "the Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in a new restriction on women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market," continued Richards, "undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that covers abortion, even if they pay for most of the premium with their own money."

On Friday, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said passing Stupak's legislation could jeopardize passage of the bill, because abortion-rights supporters were likely to vote against a bill that includes it.

BACKGROUND on STUPAK/PITTS AMENDMENT:

The Stupak/Pitts amendment would:

  • Prohibit individuals who receive the affordability tax credits from purchasing a private insurance plan that covers abortion, despite the fact that a majority of health insurance plans currently cover abortion.
  • Result in a de facto ban on private insurance companies providing abortion coverage in the health insurance exchange, since the vast majority of participants would receive affordability tax credits.
  • Prohibit the public option from providing abortion care, despite the fact that it would be funded through private premium dollars.


The current compromise in the bill, the Capps Amendment, already strikes the right balance between pro-choice and anti-choice interests.

  • It stipulates that health plans cannot be mandated to cover abortion, but they can choose to.
  • If a plan chooses to cover abortion, the compromise stipulates that no federal funds can go towards abortion, consistent with current federal policy.
  • It ensures state laws regarding abortion coverage are not pre-empted, so if states want to pass further restrictions on abortion coverage, they can.  This a significant win for anti-choice organizations.
  • Protects conscience rights of health care providers and facilities.


The following is a list of editorials in major newspapers that have opposed Stupak/Pitts and similar proposals:

An editorial in USA Today (11/2/09):
“[The Stupak amendment] goes too far. It would mark a broad new expansion in the effort to restrict access to abortion. Nearly 90% of private health insurance policies now offer abortion coverage, and almost half of women with private insurance have it. But women covered under the new system would have to find supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket for an unanticipated procedure that can cost from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on complexity. For anyone unable to afford it, this would amount to a de facto ban.”
[
An editorial in the New York Times said (10/1/09):
“Conservative critics of pending reform bills want to prohibit the use of tax subsidies to buy any health insurance policy that covers abortion. Some want to require women to buy an extra insurance “rider” if they want abortion coverage, an unworkable approach given that almost no one expects to need an abortion, few women would buy the rider and, therefore, few insurance companies would even offer it.”

An editorial in the LA Times said (11/6/09):
 “The real goal of abortion opponents isn't to maintain the status quo. It's to extend federal prohibitions into private pocketbooks. By restricting coverage offered through the exchange, they hope to make abortion coverage so unattractive that insurers eventually stop offering it in the market for individual and small-group policies.”

An editorial in The St. Petersburg Times said (11/5/09):
“Contrary to the claims of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who has been leading the antiabortion effort, the Capps amendment would not expand federal funding for abortion. Instead it would establish some basic principles to reflect the current health insurance landscape in which nearly 90 percent of private plans offer abortion coverage.“

]]> Kathleen Kennedy Townsend: The Health Reform Bill is Abortion-Neutral. Let's Pass It. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/06/kathleen-kennedy-townsend-the-health-reform-bill-abortionneutral-lets-pass-it 2009-11-06T17:16:29-05:00 2009-11-06T17:24:03-05:00 Jodi Jacobson In a remarkable piece at Newsweek.com, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend writes that it is in the national interest "to pass meaningful health-care reform and not litigate abortion in the process. Too much is at stake to let differences over abortion derail real health reform."

Townsend recalls the words of her uncle, John F. Kennedy:

Nearly 50 years ago, President Kennedy delivered his famous "Catholic" speech in which he stated, "Whatever issue may come before me as president—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise."

"These words," se writes, "still ring true today, and nowhere more so than in the current health-care debate. In recent months, much has been made over the question of the Roman Catholic faith, health care reform, and abortion."

The Roman Catholic Church and American Catholics have long believed that health care is a basic human right. The church has been a leader in the struggle to achieve quality, affordable coverage for all. They know that if the United States is ever going to climb out of its dismal standing as 30th in infant mortality in the world, women will need access to better prenatal care so that they can give birth to healthier babies. Yet as lofty ideas turn into actual policy details, the perennial question of how to deal with the issues of women's health—specifically abortion and federal funding—has come up. In solving this issue, perhaps we should heed the words of my uncle: what is in the national interest.

The good news is that thoughtful minds have come together in the House of Representatives to craft a reasonable and abortion-neutral proposal in health reform. It is neither pro-choice nor anti-choice. It is simply pro–health care.

Read the rest of this opinion piece at Newsweek.com.

]]> The Ellsworth Amendment: Dems Set to Compromise on Abortion Care in Health Reform, Again http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/06/dems-set-compromiseagainon-abortion-care-health-reform 2009-11-06T15:48:14-05:00 2009-11-06T18:56:15-05:00 Jodi Jacobson A vote originally set for tomorrow on the House health care bill (HR 3200) may be delayed until next week, even after months of drama to arrive at this point.  And to get to yes, Democrats are set to make another compromise on abortion care.

If there is one thing this process has revealed it is that there is no real way to find common ground on women's sexual and reproductive health and rights with today's Republican party, or with the majority of the so-called Democrats for Life, who for all intents and purposes under the leadership of Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak are currently acting as the legislative arm of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. These folks don't even support access to contraception for the purpose of reducing unintended pregnancies, never mind abortion even to save the life of the mother, so "compromise" on an issue of such profound implications for women is an idealized concept to say the least.

And in fact passage of the current bill remains in question in part because of demands by Stupak and anti-choice forces for language that would completely eliminate coverage of abortion care even in private insurance plans. 

As noted here before, a Guttmacher Institute study has found that 87 percent of typical employer-based insurance policies cover abortion care. So under Stupak's proposed amendment to the bill, women would actually lose coverage under health reform.  It seems Minority Leader John Boehner had it partly right when he talked about health reform as a threat to freedom, but he was confused because it is the anti-choice amendments to this bill that threaten the freedom of women to choose private insurance plans that meet their needs.

These problems were supposed to be avoided by the first compromise, known as the Capps Amendment (see "The Truth About the Capps Amendment") which was included in the House Energy and Commerce bill this summer and has been incorporated into the final House bill.  Authored by Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA), a strong pro-choice and women's rights advocate, the amendment was intended to create an "abortion neutral" platform and pass a good health reform bill as expeditiously as possible.

In other words, with this amendment, abortion was supposed to be off the table as a lightening rod for efforts to upend the reform process.  The pro-choice side (read: the women of the United States) would not gain any additional provisions expanding coverage for abortion care under health reform.  And the anti-choice side (read: largely male, largely ultra-conservative, largely Catholic) would not have to suffer either expansion of abortion coverage or any loosening of current restrictions on federal funding of abortion embodied in the Hyde Amendment.

The key elements of the Capps Amendment are that it:

  • Clarifies that the government could not mandate nor prohibit coverage for abortion services for plans in the insurance exchange.
  • Ensures that patients will have access to at least one plan that does cover abortions services and one that does not, thereby providing more choices to those who are pro-life since as per above most private health insurance plans cover abortion services regardless of whether or not enrollee wants it.

  • Also expands the “Conscience Clauses” (i.e., permission for providers to refuse to provide abortions), including the one known as the Weldon Amendment), which is in fact expanded under Capps.

  • Clarifies that public funding may not be used to pay for abortion services.  Under Capps, private funds (generated by patient premiums) can still be used to pay for these services.  These private funds must be kept strictly segregated from any federal funds.

  • Does not interfere with the Hyde Amendment (which says no Federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman).

 

The Capps amendment also does not interfere with or preempt any state laws regarding abortion (i.e. laws regarding parental notification, waiting periods, and so on.)

To call this a compromise or "abortion neutral" is generous, since even given the best intentions of Congresswoman Capps and her desire to move the process forward, the amendment bends over backwards to appease anti-choice groups by expanding conscience clauses that are already more than sufficient and that many consider unethical on their face, and by taking off the table any discussion of expanded abortion coverage for poor women specifically.

But this is about politics, and the Democrats need to pass health reform, so I digress.

The problem?  It turns out not everyone is down with the Capps amendment nor the abortion neutral position, however, least of which are the Catholic Bishops and the conservative Republi-crats hiding out in the Democratic party.  Stupak, for example, is not satisifed with segregating federal funding from private premiums for abortion within insurance plans.  So he and others in his caucus have promised to withold votes unless they get their way and unless they are assured a vote on his amendment during debate on the bill.

Pro-choice groups are of course rallying hard to defeat Stupak's proposal (see Planned Parenthood's action page here), and off-the-record conversations with several Hill staffers indicated that his amendment is a "deal-breaker" for many members in any case. 

But the stakes are very high, things can change quickly, the infighting leaves the leadership short on ayes in the 11th hour, the pressure is on the Obama Administration to deliver and there already is talk of the vote being delayed.  Given these realities, the underside of that bus so familiar to women when politics collides with reproductive rights appears to be lurking ominously around the corner.  Still, House leaders are furiously counting votes, and are also working on yet another compromise on abortion in an effort to secure enough votes to pass the bill.

The new compromise language under consideration is an amendment by Congressman Brad Ellsworth, a pro-life Democrat from Illinois with a zero rating on votes from Planned Parenthood.  As of this writing the final language was still a work in progress, and Congresswoman Capps' office was fully engaged in negotiating with Congressman Ellsworth.  However, a memo from the Congressional Research Service and analyses by both Hill staffers and advocacy groups suggests that if passed as currently written in draft, the Ellsworth proposal would essentially do the following:

  • Ensure no federal funds can ever be used in the Health Insurance Exchange proposed in the House bill: The Capps Amendment states that no federal subsidies to individuals in the form of Affordability Credits can be used to pay for abortion coverage. According to a memo drafted by Third Way, "the Ellsworth Amendment expands this ban to apply to any and all 'other federal funds' that do now or may in the future fund the Exchange. This means that any additional federal dollars, even those beyond “Affordability Credits,” that may be designated to fund the exchange (i.e. as part of a future stimulus package) will now not be able to fund abortions."

  • Make the Hyde Amendment permanent in the "pro-life" plans in the Exchange:  Under the Capps Amendment, at least one plan in the Exchange must be available that covers abortion services only in Hyde Amendment exceptions (in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment). Managers of this plan can, in fact, choose not to even cover Hyde-approved abortions.  The Ellsworth Amendment ensures that even if the Hyde Amendment is not renewed or is changed, at least one plan in the Exchange will still meet the Hyde Amendment standards by providing abortion only in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment, while still making it clear that this plan need not cover abortions at all.

  • Ensure there is no discrimination against health insurance plans that do not provide abortion.  The Capps Amendment specifically bans abortion coverage from inclusion in the minimum essential benefits package for insurance plans whether in or out of the Exchange. Ellsworth tightens this provision by ensuring that plans that do not cover abortion are not penalized in any way by the the commissioner who administers the day-to-day workings of the Exchange. It also bans discrimination against pro-life plans wanting to get into the exchange after the first required pro-life plan has filled that “slot."

  • Require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to hire a private contractor for handling funds that can be allocated out of private premiums for insurance coverage of abortion and strengthens the means through which those funds remain segregated.


Reaction to the Ellsworth Amendment has been mixed.  Laurie Rubiner, Vice President for Public Policy for Planned Parenthood stated that:

Planned Parenthood is concerned about Representative Brad Ellsworth’s proposed legislative language on abortion care in health care reform. Representative Ellsworth has a zero percent rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and has never been a supporter of women’s health and rights.   

Representative Ellsworth’s language purportedly seeks to amend a carefully-crafted and balanced compromise that should have put this issue to rest months ago. The Capps compromise assures that access to abortion care is neither mandated nor prohibited and that women will not lose the health care benefits they have had for decades.  It also stipulates that no federal funds can be used for abortion care. We are concerned that this new language could tip the balance away from women’s access to reproductive health care.

Others agree that the Amendment "tips the balance" though some claim only slightly so.  Third Way's analysis of Ellsworth's Amendment states:

Supporters of health care reform have been determined not to let the delicate issue of abortion trip up comprehensive legislation. The key to that effort has been to seek the goal of “abortion neutrality,” which means that the legality, cost, and availability of abortion, as well as the federal role in abortion, is no greater or no less than if there were no bill. Our close read of the language offered by pro-life Rep. Brad Ellsworth finds that his proposed amendment moves the bill in a pro-life direction but still achieves the goal of abortion neutrality.

Others have said that this proposal provides a way to "bold and underscore" the segregation and non-use of federal funds for abortion care, while allowing individuals to exercise their rights to this legal procedure under private plans with their money paying the premiums.

The stricter segregation of funds, the creation and protection of plans that do not provide abortion, and the other legal assurances created by the Ellsworth Amendment still don't mollify the far-out right.  National Right to Life committee has called it a "political fig leaf made of cellophane" and the conservative OneNewsNow calls it a "sham."  As noted above, Stupak and the Bishops remain unimpressed.

It's up to women's rights groups and women throughout this country to take action now, because the anti-choice movement is in the halls of Congress, literally.  And one thing is clear: The only way to mollify this contingent is to strip half the US population of its fundamental rights.  Any more "compromise" and that's where we will be.

 

]]> Roundup: Calling Health Reform the "Greatest Threat to Freedom" Boehner Leads Circus on the Hill http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/06/roundup-calling-health-reform-greatest-threat-freedom-he-has-seen-boehner-leads-circus-hill 2009-11-06T10:15:39-05:00 2009-11-06T11:13:57-05:00 Jodi Jacobson How's this for hyperbole? At a press conference yesterday, House minority leader John Boehner called the House health reform bill "the greatest threat to freedom I have seen in my 19 years in Washington." ]]>

How's this for hyperbole?  At a press conference yesterday, House minority leader John Boehner called the House health reform bill "the greatest threat to freedom I have seen in my 19 years in Washington."

John Boehner's impassioned hyperbole at a GOP health care rally on November 5th.

A piece of legislation meant to increase health care coverage for millions of people throughout the United States is the "greatest threat to freedom" he has ever seen? 

The House bill is so "out there" it has been endorsed by such radical organizations as the American Medical Association and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), which represents some 40 million Americans. 

This would be laughable if not for the following realities.  First, he is in fact the leader of one of two major political parties in the United States and has engaged in destructive rhetoric since day one of the Obama Administration. 

Two, he leads House Republicans, who have vowed not to deliver one single vote in favor of health reform tomorrow (Saturday) despite innumerable efforts by Democrats to appease even the most outlandish requests by the Republicans.  (And for some reason the Democrats continue to believe they need to compromise with these folks, which only emboldens them further.)

And three, he and others in the Republican party--a party that is itself now so far right in its entirety there is no "wing" left to speak of, it just is the party of the far, far right--are relying on the frenzy of a large contingent of people from throughout the United States so ill-informed and so unable to engage in democratic debate about anything that they were comparing health reform to the Holocaust.  Really.

"National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany -- 1945," read a sign that ThinkProgress' Lee Fang captured on camera. The image appears to show dead bodies from the Nazi holocaust piled one on top of another.

teapartyzoom Tea Partiers heckle police as protesters arrested

Blogger Matthew Yglesias commented:

There are all kinds of nutty people in the world, but these kinds of things are the wages of a conservative leadership and media that’s consistently tried to drum up opposition to health care reform not by opposing things that are actually in the bill, but with demagogic opposition to completely fabricated provisions.

That pretty much sums it up.  

Other News to Note

November 6th, 2009

November 5th, 2009

]]> Where's the Birth Control? http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/05/wheres-birth-control 2009-11-06T06:00:00-05:00 2009-11-06T07:15:42-05:00 Sharon Lerner

Reposted with permission from The Nation.com.

Recently it has seemed healthcare reform may be on the mend. The public option returned from the brink of death. The town hall fever broke as inexplicably as it began. And Congress is in the process of remedying discriminatory insurance-company practices based on pre-existing conditions and gender. But just as the prognosis for our healthcare system is beginning to look sunnier, yet another complication has emerged: so far, reform legislation has failed to require insurers to cover some basic preventive services for women, or prevent providers from charging extra for them.

None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation.

Granted, Congress can't--and shouldn't--get into the business of spelling out every possible cause for a trip to the doctor. No one wants the process to collapse under a mountain of requests from special interest groups à la the Clinton mess in 1993. But women, half of all adult patients, are not a special interest group. And since both the House and Senate bills include lists of specific services that must be covered by health insurance companies and be provided without asking patients for additional money, it's hard to understand why all the services provided in a basic well-woman visit to the gynecologist isn't on them along with maternity care, newborn care, pediatric dental and vision services, and substance use disorder services.

 

The fault for the initial omission can be laid at the feet of Democrats, who shied away from the issue, not wanting to invite controversy, according to women's health advocates who tried unsuccessfully to get women's preventive health care included in the basic benefits package. Some of the concern had to do with cost. Adding any required service to the basic benefits package would mean the Congressional Budget Office would give the bill a higher score, or price tag, leaving it more vulnerable to attack by budget hawks. But another part of the problem clearly stems from the fact that women's bodies have become political lightening rods, even when abortion is not the issue.

Consider what happened when the subject of women's preventive healthcare services came up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) in July, after the minimum benefits package had already been determined. Because some essential care for women wasn't included in the list, HELP committee member Senator Barbara Mikulski proposed an amendment that would require the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to stipulate that basic women's health services would be covered. The language said nothing about abortion, referring only to "preventive care and screenings."

Yet the voting on the amendment went exactly along pro- and anti-choice lines. The amendment passed by just one vote, with all the committee's Republicans as well as Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat, voting against it. The committee's discussion of the amendment was dominated by Republicans' worry about the possibility of government money winding up in the hands of Planned Parenthood. Since there is no similar language included in the just-released House bill, the only hope for requiring full coverage for these essential services now lies with the Senate.

 

While some within the anti-abortion movement have long opposed birth control, there is still widespread support for it among the general public, with virtually all women of childbearing age who have had sex using contraception. So why would senators treat birth control and other basic women's health services as a proxy for abortion? "People equate family planning services with Planned Parenthood, and they equate Planned Parenthood with abortion," says Adam Sonfield, an expert on funding for reproductive health services at the Guttmacher Institute. The senators who turned Mikulski's language into a referendum on abortion "either misunderstood or purposely distorted the amendment."

Either way, the irony of letting anti-abortion sentiment undercut the coverage of birth control is that it will likely lead to more abortions. "If women can't get this kind of primary care, there are three clear outcomes: cancer, abortions and infertility," says Anne Davis, medical director of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and a practicing Ob/Gyn in New York City. Davis cites the facts that untreated sexually transmitted infections can lead to infertility, and that pelvic exams help diagnose cervical cancers. As for the importance of covering--and not requiring women to kick in additional money for--birth control, Davis says, "It's fundamental primary preventive care. So if we don't do this, we're causing a lot of abortions."

Still, some Democrats involved in the health reform sausage-making process counsel patience. Noting that both Pap smears and mammograms should be covered by a reform bill, Senator Al Franken said, "There's more we need to do for women's health, but this is a huge step forward for American women, many of whom don't get these recommended screenings right now. What we pass may not be perfect, but it will make progress in improving the lives and health of women."

Yet, before we resign ourselves to a very imperfect health reform bill, it's worth reminding lawmakers that women's health extends far beyond abortion. And while those who make our laws may fear the consequences of taking a stand for basic services for this half of the population, the cost of not doing it, both in terms of health and politics, is sure to be far greater.

]]> Notorious Extremist Weslin and Others Arrested at Capitol http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/06/notorious-extremist-weslin-and-others-arrested-capitol 2009-11-06T06:00:00-05:00 2009-11-06T07:03:18-05:00 Wendy Norris Notorious anti-abortion activist Father Norman Weslin was among a dozen protesters arrested by U.S. Capitol Police outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district office Thursday at a raucous protest against the health reform bill. ]]> Notorious anti-abortion activist Father Norman Weslin was among a dozen protesters arrested by U.S. Capitol Police outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district office Thursday at a raucous protest against the health reform bill.

According to video captured by protesters accompanying Randall Terry, who leads the newly dubbed Operation Rescue Insurrecta Nex, Weslin was initially seated inside Pelosi's suite in the Cannon House Office Building clutching a stack of papers in his lap. Meanwhile, anti-abortion protesters shouted "kill the bill" slogans and ripped up pages of the Democrats proposed health care legislation in the hallway.

Police arrested the demonstrators for disorderly conduct and refusing to leave Pelosi's secondary office around 2:15 p.m. EST. Approximately, 100 people filled the concourse alternately shouting anti-abortion slogans and demanding the police release the protesters.

While law enforcement futilely attempted to clear the hallway of on-lookers, press and five bill supporters who donned hospital gowns and faux plastic bare buttocks, Weslin suddenly appeared in the doorway and stumbled across the office threshold.

The Catholic priest, dressed all in black, a clerical collar and black rubber Crocs, fell hard on his back on the floor in the hallway. A Capitol police officer attended to Weslin and was soon joined by colleagues who carried the uncooperative 78-year-old veteran protester outside.

During the hullabaloo, Pelosi was in the Speaker's office inside the Capitol and not in her California congressional district suite where the protest took place.

Talking Points Memo reporter Christina Bellantoni captured video of Weslin's detention and escort into a waiting ambulance outside the Cannon House Office Building. A crowd milling in the area following the anti-health care reform Tea Party rally organized by House Republicans began singing an off-key and lyric-mangled version of "God Bless America":

Then, they began heckling the police:

Weslin is best known as the founder of the Lambs of Christ, a nomadic paleo-conservative network of activists that stage clinic invasions and general mayhem goading police to arrest them.

The group has long been linked to violent extremists in the anti-abortion movement. Early Lambs members include James Kopp, who is serving a life sentence in the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian, and Shelley Shannon, who is imprisoned for a series of arson and acid attacks on clinics following her 1993 shooting of Dr. George Tiller.

This latest public folly marks nearly 80 arrests for Weslin.

]]> Michigan Legislator Calls for Repeal of Gay Marriage Ban http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/06/michigan-legislator-calls-repeal-gay-marriage-ban 2009-11-06T06:00:00-05:00 2009-11-06T07:26:37-05:00 Todd Heywood

This article is reprinted from the Michigan Messenger, as part of a partnership between RH Reality Check and the Center for Independent Media.

Following up on a June surprise, Michigan House Speaker Pro Tem Pam Byrnes on Wednesday announced she had introduced legislation to roll back a 2004 constitutional amendment which bans same-sex marriage in the state.

Pam Byrnes

Pam Byrnes

Byrnes, a Democrat from Washtenaw County’s Lyndon Township, introduced a package of bills which includes: a repeal of of the Constitutional amendment, which will require a two-thirds vote of both chambers of the legislature; a bill to explicitly legalize same-sex marriage in Michigan; and a bill to remove state law restrictions which prevent Michigan from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in another state.

“This really boils down to treating all people with the dignity and respect everyone deserves,” she said. “So many of us were raised to treat others how we’d like to be treated — it’s about time we start actually doing that. Last time I checked the Golden Rule didn’t say ‘treat others how you’d like to be treated, unless they are gay or lesbian.”

Byrnes told Michigan Messenger in June, that she thought the time was right for the legislative move.

The time has come. … I think attitudes are changing. We are seeing other states flip on this issue especially when you get the former Vice President Dick Cheney acknowledging same-sex marriages then I think we definitely see a change in attitude and it’s time to revisit this.

Byrnes’ proposal would require a two-thirds vote of approval from both the House and the Senate in order to revise the state constitution by putting a question on the ballot.

And electoral success in Michigan Tuesday might just support Byrnes’ June optimism.

Byrnes announcement on Wednesday came less than 24 hours after Kalamazoo voters overwhelmingly approved an ordinance to prohibiting discrimination on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation and gender identity. Those same voters in Kalamazoo voted openly gay resident Terry Kuseke to the city commission.

Voters in Detroit also sent openly gay former news man Charles Pugh to the president’s seat on the Detroit City Council — making him the first openly gay council member in the city’s history. Meanwhile, voters in Ferndale return Michigan’s first openly gay mayor, Craig Covey, to the mayor’s seat there.

The issue of same-sex marriage itself had a mixed result nationally. Maine voters rejected a law which would allow same-sex couples to marry, while Washington state voters approved a ballot measure dubbed “everything but marriage.” A year ago, as the nation celebrated the election of then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama to the White House, LGBT Americans were outraged to lose the right to marry in California because an initiative there, called Proposal 8, passed.

Byrnes was flanked by representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan; Triangle Foundation, a Detroit-based LGBT rights group; Michigan Equality, a Lansing-based LGBT rights group; and from both organized labor and clergy.

]]> If You Want A Say In Your Own Birth Process, Please Leave Now http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/05/if-you-want-a-say-in-your-own-birth-process-please-leave-now 2009-11-05T17:18:14-05:00 2009-11-05T18:08:06-05:00 Amie Newman Whose idea of customer service is this?  If you want one of those fancy "support people" while your birthing or have some newfangled idea that you'll be making your own decisions about how you'd like to birth, well you can just turn that pretty little head of yours around and leave right now.

Thank god for The Unnecesarean.com calling travesties like this out in such a hilarious way.

Here's the friendly message from the physicians at the Aspen Women's Center to pregnant women:

And here's just a sample of the spoofs on the sign that Jill at Unnecesarean.com is calling for (You can still enter the contest and win a copy of childbirth educator Penny Simkin's book "The Birth Partner"):

]]> Confused About Condoms? The Seven Best Condoms Rated for You http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/05/confused-about-condoms-the-seven-best-condoms-rated-you 2009-11-05T15:29:58-05:00 2009-11-05T16:53:35-05:00 Amie Newman Confused about condoms and which brands are best? Consumer Reports rolls out the results of their latest testing for you. ]]>

And you thought Consumer Reports was only the place to go for the safest automobile or the best buy on a vacuum cleaner.

How about the most reliable condom?

One lucky, lucky mystery shopper was tasked with purchasing 15,000 condoms so that Consumer Reports products testers could provide you with a list of the top seven condoms on the market. Before you read any further, be advised that in order to access the ratings for these top brands, you need to be a subscriber to Consumer Reports. 

What I can tell you is that, according to the magazine, "Seven of the 20 models we tested earned a perfect score, indicating they were not only stronger and more reliable than most, but also had no leaks or flaws in their packaging. Those top seven include one Durex, two Lifestyles, and four Trojan models..."

What did CR put these poor condoms through?

Lab technicians then unrolled them, stretched them, measured them, visually examined them, dunked them in liquid (to check for leaks), and inflated them with air until they burst to determine which ones are strong enough to put your trust (or you or your partner) into.

There's even a humorous video with lots of sexual innuendo!

Be advised, however, if you're the type that goes for the kitsch-factor when it comes to condoms (really, you should stick to funky lamps or quirky collectibles if you're into kitsch - not pregnancy and disease prevention but anyway...), there is one in particular to beware of:

Alas, one of the more playful condoms we tested, the Night Light glow-in-the-dark model, didn’t fare as well, earning our lowest score for strength and exceeding the allowable number of samples with holes. But it did live up to its name on the glow front.

The condom test and results can be found in the November 2009 issue.

]]> Illinois Judge Issues Temporary Restraining Order on Enforcement of Parental Notification Law http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/05/illinois-judge-issues-temporary-restraining-order-enforcement-parental-notification-law 2009-11-05T13:00:56-05:00 2009-11-05T13:19:57-05:00 Jodi Jacobson Associated Press reports that an Illinois judge has issued a temporary restraining order delaying enforcement of a law requiring doctors to notify parents of teens who are seeking an abortion.  The order was issued in response to a request by the American Civil Liberties Union, and is to remain in effect until the judge can hear arguments on why the law should not be put into effect.

"What we're focused on now is protecting the health and well being of young women across the state of Illinois," ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka told AP.

As reported here on Tuesday, the law was set to go into effect Wednesday, after an earlier decision had lifted a restraining order on the law in place since 1995.  The state's Medical Disciplinary Board met Wednesday and voted not to extend a 90-day grace period originally put into place in August and intended to examine the best means of ensuring that judicial bypass mechanisms could be put in place. 

The law requires doctors to notify the parents or guardians of girls 17 or younger 48 hours before the teens get abortions. It requires no notice in a medical emergency or in cases of sexual abuse, and a provision allows girls to bypass parental notification by going to a judge.

Peter Breen, executive director of the Chicago-based Thomas Moore Society Pro-Life Law Center, said the group was at first "heartened" by the medical board's decision.  "It's about parents and kids talking," Breen said. "No one should be against this."

But most experts argue that teens who can talk to and have a good relationship with their parents will share this information willingly, whereas those who fear retribution, ostracism or physical or emotional abuse from their parents, and those whose pregnancies may be the result of incest are the ones who most need confidentiality in seeking servics.

For example, Planned Parenthood of Illinois has been providing notification since August, spokeswoman Beth Kanter told AP. If a teen said she wasn't comfortable letting a parent or guardian know, Planned Parenthood has been referring her to another health care provider who was using the grace period, Kanter said.

"We believe that government cannot and should not mandate this communication," Kanter said. "Most teens do seek their parents' advice and counsel ... but in some cases safe and open communication isn't possible."

Court hearings for ACLU's arguments against enforcing the law are pending.

]]> What Is the Message From This Election? Ultraconservatives Are Emboldened http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/04/what-is-message-from-yesterdays-elections-ultraconservatives-are-emboldened 2009-11-05T06:00:00-05:00 2009-11-05T21:40:51-05:00 Margaret Conway It's  often useless to draw sweeping conclusions from any off-year or special election.  Turnout can be a little wacky (for example, it was much lower in VA than in 2008), and is often dominated by older and high-frequency voters.  At this writing, all the data aren't in, so it's too early to delve too deeply into whether or how to project voter sentiment onto the course of future elections.

That said, I believe that for supporters of reproductive rights and justice, there is one important take-away from yesterday’s elections:  ultra-conservatives are emboldened.  It has nothing to do with trends—it’s now a reality.

What will this mean?

First,  we will see more challenges in Republican primaries.  Despite losing the election in NY-23, conservatives feel they took down a traitor, pro-choice Republican Dede Scozzafava.  She was even considered by some to be more liberal than the Democrat, though both she and Owens were pro-choice. Already, right-wing activists and tea-baggers, led by FreedomWorks' chair and former GOP House majority leader Dick Armey, are preparing to challenge Republican candidates in more than a dozen House and Senate races in 2010." "What you're going to see," said Armey, "is moderates and conservatives across the country in primaries."

It’s not just those anti-tax, socialist-fearing FreedomWorks folks, but anti-choice activists who feel buoyed by the election.  The Susan B. Anthony List, which supports anti-choice women candidates, teamed up with the National Organization for Marriage to mobilize votes for Conservative Party Candidate Doug Hoffman.  They spent $142,000 in the race, including $11,000 in bundled contributions from organization members and sent nine field staffers to the district. Their reason for this investment?  “The road to a GOP majority is not paved with taxpayer-funded abortion, same-sex marriage and government-run healthcare."

Neither FreedomWorks nor SBA care that a House seat that has been in Republican hands for more than 100 years is now held by a Democrat.  They would rather see a Democrat than a moderate Republican hold the seat.  One scenario that could result is that these emboldened ultra-conservatives and the moderates keep fighting amongst themselves, nominating unelectable candidates in races across the country. Will what is left of moderate Republicans disappear?  Is that a good or a bad thing?

But this brings me to my other main concern about this bolder, more visible ultra-conservative push.  How will elected Democrats react?   In the same breath that they were trumpeting their so-called success, SBA used their election work to warn Congress about health care:  “Such success should serve as a cautionary tale to Congress and the White House, whose overreach on health care could experience a similar demise.”  This of course is referring, in part at least, as “no abortion coverage in health care.”

A problematic scenario that could result is that moderate Democrats, too many of whom are already weak-in-the-spine on abortion rights,  will use this as an excuse to throw reproductive health under the bus—on health care coverage and beyond.  This is avoidable if Democrats actually look at real data.  Exit polls show that NJ and VA elections were dominated by bread-and-butter issues of economy and jobs, health care, and taxes.  There is no need to begin compromising on issues like reproductive health in an attempt to placate voters.

It’s also avoidable if we can re-energize our base, especially pro-choice and pro-health care women.   Noted, it’s hard to motivate a base through compromise, or when our president is shying away from reproductive rights so publicly.  But just as our opponents are openly partnering with anti-gay marriage groups, we can form partnerships with LGBT and other progressive partners to create a broader, motivated core of advocates who can hold pro-choice officials accountable before and after election day.

Only time will tell how this new phase of ultra-conservatism among Republicans will play out over the next year.  What do you predict--and how should pro-choice, pro-reproductive justice advocates prepare and respond to increased pressure from the teabag wing of the Republican party?

]]> PEPFAR: Are Abstinence Requirements Really Gone? http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/04/pepfar-reauthorization-are-abstinence-requirements-really-gone 2009-11-05T06:00:00-05:00 2009-11-05T22:08:04-05:00 Liz Bayer

This article was originally published at Amplify, the online publication of Advocates for Youth, one of the leading organizations on sexual and reproductive health for youth.

In mid-September, I was lucky enough to be a part of a group of young people from Advocates for Youth, comprised of students and activists from the US, Jamaica, Nigeria, and Ethiopia, that met with the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC).  OGAC is responsible for administering and overseeing the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which was reauthorized in 2008.  We met with OGAC to talk with them about how new funding regulations and policies would affect young people in PEPFAR countries.

With the first PEPFAR authorization in 2003, the authorizing legislation required that a third of all HIV prevention funding (20 percent of the total PEPFAR funds) be used for abstinence-until-marriage programs, or the “A” part of the ABC approach to prevention.  For young people, the B (be faithful), and C (consistent and correct condom use) approaches were emphasized less than abstinence and were stressed mainly as interventions for married couples, commercial sex workers, and “high risk” groups. Fortunately, the reauthorized PEPFAR does not include the earmark for abstinence-until-marriage funding. 

However, the new law does include a new reporting requirement that requires OGAC to submit an explanation to Congress whenever countries with generalized epidemics utilize less than 50 percent of their funds allocated to prevention of sexual transmission on programs containing abstinence, delay of sexual initiation, fidelity, monogamy, and partner reduction components.

While this may not seem like a problem, it’s still a worrisome regulation. 
In this vein, it was not clear whether OGAC’s current legislative interpretation means that a comprehensive program that teaches the values and benefits of abstinence, while also teaching faithfulness and condom use, would count towards the 50 percent requirement, or if the inclusion of condom instruction would render it a “C” program in the eyes of PEPFAR and congressional stipulations. It’s important OGAC employs a prevention model for young people that is centered on comprehensive prevention education, because when it comes to HIV prevention, we need to make sure that young people have all the information that they need to prevent HIV.  There is no evidence that abstinence only programs work, whereas comprehensive programs have been shown to delay sexual initiation and increase correct and consistent condom use among sexually active youth.  We need comprehensive education, which is by definition inclusive of abstinence, to count towards soft quota for “AB” programs.

Because the HIV pandemic affects a vast number of young people, it’s important that they be included in the conversations about implementation of PEPFAR and also that they be a major focus group for PEPFAR funding and programming.  Youth activists from Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Jamaica were able to share with OGAC the major success that they have had in influencing policy in their countries.  They have also been able to reach out to their peers through the schools and through extension workers to educate other young people about sexual and reproductive health, including HIV prevention.   In particular, there has been a focus on incorporating the voices of young people who are HIV-positive in crafting strategies to help them live longer and better lives.  But there also needs to be an increased focus on getting feedback from young people who are at risk of infection about how to best reach them, help them, and get them the information and education that they need to prevent HIV infection.

We were all very grateful that OGAC took the time to meet with us and hear from youth activists.  We’re hopeful about the direction that PEPFAR is heading, and we’re encouraged that abstinence-only restrictions have been relaxed, but it’s important to ensure that comprehensive education, which includes “A,” “B,” and “C” is readily available in PEPFAR countries and fits within the “AB” reporting requirements.   We also want to ensure that young people, who constitute 45 percent of all new HIV infections, are included in the planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of prevention efforts.  We’ve seen that young people can make a difference in designing and implementing policy and reaching out to other adolescents.  In the fight against HIV, it’s vital that our voices be heard.

]]> Michigan Corrections Officials Push Change to Policies on HIV-Positive Prisoners http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/05/michigan-corrections-officials-push-change-policies-hivpositive-prisoners 2009-11-05T06:00:00-05:00 2009-11-04T23:37:16-05:00 Todd Heywood

This article was originally published at Michigan Messenger, and is published here in partnership with Michigan Messenger, the Center for Independent Media, and RH Reality Check.

A Michigan Department of Corrections official has confirmed that the department is in the first stages of making a change to a controversial policy barring HIV-positive prisoners from working in food service jobs.

MDOC Assistant Director Russ Marlan said in an interview last week that the department’s director, Patricia Caruso, has approved a plan to change the policy, something Michigan Messenger first examined in April followed by an investigation by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights.

“[Caruso] has authorized a change in the policy,” said Marlan, who serves as a department spokesman. “She authorized me to begin that process with our policy people.”

As a result, a letter and draft language eliminating the food service prohibition provision went out sometime in the last week to wardens and other stakeholders in the corrections department, Marlan said. Those officials will have 30 days to respond to the proposed changes, and if nothing surfaces to challenge the change, the policy could go in effect as early as the beginning of December.

Marlan stressed that while the policy change was not a “done deal,” only strong reservations from wardens and others backed up with substantial information could derail the roll-out of the policy revisions.

“She has said it couldn’t just be anecdotal, they’d have to have real data,” Marlan said.

Statistics from 2006 show1 percent of the Michigan’s prison population was infected with HIV, the virus which causes AIDS.

The current policy is in place, Marlan said, to prevent violence. The basis for the policy was the cause of some controversy earlier this year, when Marlan told Michigan Messenger that the policy was to prevent HIV from being spread to other prisoners through food. At the time, Marlan suggested it was possible for the virus to be transmitted through a HIV-positive inmate sneezing on food. Marlan also suggested that an infected prisoner could transmit the virus in kitchen accidents, saying, for example, that blood on a radish could cause HIV to spread.

Months later, Marlan retracted his comments telling Michigan Messenger they were “ridiculously wrong.” They also triggered a review of the policy by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights.

The actual reason for the policy is the fear that out of ignorance, a prisoner who is HIV-positive serving other prisoners could result in targeted violence against the HIV-positive prisoner. Federal courts have ruled corrections policies do not have to be based on facts, but have a wide latitude to address real or perceived threats to security. Potential violence could certainly be a threat to security.

But Marlan said education in place in all MDOC facilities should negate the ignorance factor which could fuel potential violence. Prisoners are tested annually for the virus, and are given extensive peer-lead education on HIV and its transmission.

Activist Mark Peterson, a director with the Michigan POZ Action Coalition, is praising MDOC officials for the policy change.

“I think it shows we are in a place where a department is seeing HIV as a health issue and not so much a hysteria disease response,” Peterson said.

]]> Do Diploid Dave and Zelinda Zygote Get Equal Protection? http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/features/do-diploid-dave-and-zelinda-zygote-get-equal-protection 2009-11-04T16:00:40-05:00 2009-11-04T21:56:49-05:00 Brady Swenson

]]>

]]>